From owner-freebsd-current  Tue Apr 28 21:37:42 1998
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA12041
          for freebsd-current-outgoing; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 21:37:42 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from labinfo.iet.unipi.it (labinfo.iet.unipi.it [131.114.9.5])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id VAA12027
          for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 21:37:38 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it)
Received: from localhost (luigi@localhost) by labinfo.iet.unipi.it (8.6.5/8.6.5) id FAA27650; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 05:01:35 +0200
From: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>
Message-Id: <199804290301.FAA27650@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>
Subject: Re: Bandwidth throttling etc.
To: eivind@yes.no (Eivind Eklund)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 05:01:35 +0200 (MET DST)
Cc: julian@whistle.com, kjc@csl.sony.co.jp, current@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <19980428172548.21094@follo.net> from "Eivind Eklund" at Apr 28, 98 05:25:29 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

> Search for 'On a new IPFW interface, w/potentially wider applications'
> in the archives, and tell me what you think.
> 
> This is a description of a solution for the problem, which also get
> rid of the entire problem of the IPFW structure changing

your proposal probably does more than i need. others suggested that the
setsockopt limitation can be easily overcome (and it is already done in
-current).

more comments later.

	cheers
	luigi

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message